quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Being gay doesn't make you feminine.

---

that was my point.

---

But your point misses the mark. You don't have to be feminine but you can be and the poster was articulating an example where they knew there was something different about a person long before the person identified one way or another. When people say the effiminate gay is a stereotype that doesn't mean no homosexual fits that stereotype.

---

Is the stereotype of the feminine gay an affectation or predisposition towards feminine behavior? How many kids that grow up to be straight are always in their mother's closet? The pro-gay crowd is continuously begging for some kind of scientific research that shows that there is a genetic predisposition towards homosexual attraction as if it absolves any sort of personal responsibility. In a hypothetical situation where being gay was morally wrong; we wouldn't absolve people from their actions if there was a genetic predisposition to do them; just as we don't nowadays with behavior that is immoral.

---

I have no idea what point you think you are making. We see homosexuality in humans and in many many other parts of nature. Nothing in science indicates it is purely a choice just as you or I never chose to be attracted to women. We have a non hypothetical situation where people are born with a predilection towards children and we do not absolve them for their behavior. Their preference is no less natural than heterosexual or homosexual behavior. The similarity between homosexual and heterosexual behavior is that it involves consenting adults.

---

We're having two separate conversations. I'm stating that whether some sort of genetic predisposition toward being attracted to the same sex occurs or not; it has no bearing on whether homosexual actions should be deemed "natural". The predilection towards children and homosexual attraction is entirely unnatural; what's your definition of natural? Being attracted toward kids is considered natural now?

quote:

---

How many kids that grow up to be straight are always in their mother's closet? The pro-gay crowd is continuously begging for some kind of scientific research that shows that there is a genetic predisposition towards homosexual attraction as if it absolves any sort of personal responsibility. In a hypothetical situation where being gay was morally wrong; we wouldn't absolve people from their actions if there was a genetic predisposition to do them; just as we don't nowadays with behavior that is immoral.

---

This sounds like the sociopath/addict example, right? ie, if he was created this way, and those traits have always exhibited since birth, how can he be wrong?

But we know the answer to this, no? We distinguish between actions that affect others and ones that don't. I think the homosexual community struggles with why anyone cares when it doesn't affect them, and is confused that many think they just woke up and decided that being gay was their thing.

edit: I am not sure how this a defense of the other posters position. I was simply pointing out that "being like a woman" is not "being gay". There are many many perfectly normal, masculine gay men and dont exhibit the caricature of a gay men that lots of media portrays.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

No idea, but it sure seems like there has to be some kind of genetic component considering it just won't go away no matter how hard people have tried to make it.

---

Not to mention that kids can show tendencies far before they have any understanding of sexuality. When I was growing up, my best friends little brother was always in his mother's closet.

We were only a few years older and just thought he was a little strange. As we grew older, it was more of a WTF is wrong with your brother.

He came out in high school, in the 80's. Hardly anyone was that open about it in high school back then. Looking back, he really didn't have a choice. The kid was way too feminine to hide it.

---

It's his cross to bear. He was created that way only to suffer from not being able to act on that attraction. If he did so, he will have committed a terrible sin. His only option is to repent and turn toward God.

/Christians who just don't like homosexuality and use religion to validate their hatred of it.

6 brainwashed blue stars

---

Will you explain why your post makes sense? It seems like you just tried spiking the football in the endzone without realizing you're playing soccer. We're talking about morality here; if you change "gay" to "child molestor" or "person who is genetically predisposed to rape" would you be so flippant? Of course not; it's only because you don't see homosexual activity as being immoral; although it could be if we just wait around for society to change it's mind. We've already heard that being attracted to children is natural in this thread; just a few moments ago; if and when society decides that love-wins for pedos, will you be posting the same thing regarding Christians denouncing the practice?

quote:

---

quote:

---

How many kids that grow up to be straight are always in their mother's closet? The pro-gay crowd is continuously begging for some kind of scientific research that shows that there is a genetic predisposition towards homosexual attraction as if it absolves any sort of personal responsibility. In a hypothetical situation where being gay was morally wrong; we wouldn't absolve people from their actions if there was a genetic predisposition to do them; just as we don't nowadays with behavior that is immoral.

---

This sounds like the sociopath/addict example, right? ie, if he was created this way, and those traits have always exhibited since birth, how can he be wrong?

But we know the answer to this, no? We distinguish between actions that affect others and ones that don't. I think the homosexual community struggles with why anyone cares when it doesn't affect them, and is confused that many think they just woke up and decided that being gay was their thing.

edit: I am not sure how this a defense of the other posters position. I was simply pointing out that "being like a woman" is not "being gay". There are many many perfectly normal, masculine gay men and dont exhibit the caricature of a gay men that lots of media portrays.

---

We do distinguish between actions that affect others; but we also still pay some sort of grudging acknowledgment to natural law; take euthanasia laws or laws against suicide for example. I think both heterosexuals and homosexuals are to blame for the animosity between the two. Heterosexuals like myself really don't care much about what homosexuals do in their private lives, but disagree with homosexuality being championed and being held up to as "as natural as heterosexuality" or their arrangements as being "equal to regular marriage"; or the changing of time honored definitions. To use a poor example; if the government said "a triangle now has four sides and 4 angles measuring 90 degrees each", it wouldn't impact me in the least; but I'd still say "that's not a triangle and the government is stupid and overstepping its bounds by defining a triangle as something it's not". I have no problem with the government not defining any shapes; I have no problem with the government defining a triangle as a three sided plane whose angles add up to 180 degrees, but I do have a problem with them defining a triangle as something it's not.

quote:

---

I think both heterosexuals and homosexuals are to blame for the animosity between the two.

---

I think it's clear by what you wrote below that the animosity is purely on the heterosexual side.

quote:

---

Heterosexuals like myself really don't care much about what homosexuals do in their private lives, but disagree with homosexuality being championed and being held up to as "as natural as heterosexuality" or their arrangements as being "equal to regular marriage"; or the changing of time honored definitions. To use a poor example; if the government said "a triangle now has four sides and 4 angles measuring 90 degrees each", it wouldn't impact me in the least; but I'd still say "that's not a triangle and the government is stupid and overstepping its bounds by defining a triangle as something it's not". I have no problem with the government not defining any shapes; I have no problem with the government defining a triangle as a three sided plane whose angles add up to 180 degrees, but I do have a problem with them defining a triangle as something it's not.

---

To me, this is the ultimate amount of silliness. Gay people can't easily pass property, or visit in hospitals, do taxes together, etc...all because you simply have issues with a name. A word.

No one's making you change your religious definition of marriage. Your marriage is not changing, nor is it watered down. We just want to extend some rights to people. it's not that hard.

you can extend those rights without calling a square a triangle, I don't see what's so hard about that.

quote:

---

I think it's clear by what you wrote below that the animosity is purely on the heterosexual side.

---

Oh there's a westboro baptist equivalent of the homosexual movement that's for sure. Not that long ago so french feminazi lesbos went topless with "**** CHURCH" written on their chest and a nun's habit. The attacks against bakers and chick fila's and florists and God knows what else has been completely hateful; take your blinders off.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Will you explain why your post makes sense? It seems like you just tried spiking the football in the endzone without realizing you're playing soccer. We're talking about morality here; if you change "gay" to "child molestor" or "person who is genetically predisposed to rape" would you be so flippant? Of course not; it's only because you don't see homosexual activity as being immoral; although it could be if we just wait around for society to change it's mind. We've already heard that being attracted to children is natural in this thread; just a few moments ago; if and when society decides that love-wins for pedos, will you be posting the same thing regarding Christians denouncing the practice?

---

There is nothing similar between pedophiia and homosexuality that isn't similar with pedophilia and heterosexuality.

---

Heterosexuality is the norm; pedophilia and homosexuality are not. Do you disagree?

quote:

---

you can extend those rights without calling a square a triangle, I don't see what's so hard about that.

---

Then you haven't been following along. Even people who went through the legal hurdles and cost to setup powers of attorney to get visitation rights sometimes got them denied. Even my own companies health insurance didn't recognize same sex partnerships until recently.

Oh, we can just make civil unions and keep the word "marriage" sacred! We can make EVERYONE go get a civil union and get the government out of the "marriage business" **** Yeah!

But this costs something...time, energy, resources to go through and recodifiy everything.

Or...you can simply be rational, and say "its ok that gays can be married" and save everyone a lot of time and trouble.

Your analogy is poor because square and triangle carry with them definitions which define their sides. Only you are asserting that marriage carry with it a definition of 1 man 1 woman. It does not have to. There is no reason that a marriage in homosexual or heterosexual forms cannot both be triangles.

quote:

---

Oh there's a westboro baptist equivalent of the homosexual movement that's for sure. Not that long ago so french feminazi lesbos went topless with "**** CHURCH" written on their chest and a nun's habit. The attacks against bakers and chick fila's and florists and God knows what else has been completely hateful; take your blinders off.

---

You sound like the kid who got in a fight, but is mad that someone punched back.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Oh there's a westboro baptist equivalent of the homosexual movement that's for sure. Not that long ago so french feminazi lesbos went topless with "**** CHURCH" written on their chest and a nun's habit. The attacks against bakers and chick fila's and florists and God knows what else has been completely hateful; take your blinders off.

---

You sound like the kid who got in a fight, but is mad that someone punched back.

---

Is punching back not animosity? Really?

quote:

---

quote:

---

you can extend those rights without calling a square a triangle, I don't see what's so hard about that.

---

Then you haven't been following along. Even people who went through the legal hurdles and cost to setup powers of attorney to get visitation rights sometimes got them denied. Even my own companies health insurance didn't recognize same sex partnerships until recently.

Oh, we can just make civil unions and keep the word "marriage" sacred! We can make EVERYONE go get a civil union and get the government out of the "marriage business" **** Yeah!

But this costs something...time, energy, resources to go through and recodifiy everything.

Or...you can simply be rational, and say "its ok that gays can be married" and save everyone a lot of time and trouble.

Your analogy is poor because square and triangle carry with them definitions which define their sides. Only you are asserting that marriage carry with it a definition of 1 man 1 woman. It does not have to. There is no reason that a marriage in homosexual or heterosexual forms cannot both be triangles.

---

Marriage did carry with it a definition of one man and one woman; it was changed to suit the madding crowd. It costs absolutely nothing to say "you know those legal rights that the married people have? yeah, go ahead and give them to gay couples and call it a domestic partnership, go ahead and extend it to everyone who makes a domestic partnership regardless of whether they're romantically interested in each other". Words have meanings; marriage equality means exactly what they want it to mean; there's no difference in between the relationship between a man and a woman and a man and a man; I disagree.

quote:

---

Is punching back not animosity? Really?

---

"he punched me back" falls on deaf ears when you punched him first to begin with.

You want to act like "eh, fights happen...both are to blame".

If you can't follow that, I don't know what to tell you.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Is punching back not animosity? Really?

---

"he punched me back" falls on deaf ears when you punched him first to begin with.

You want to act like "eh, fights happen...both are to blame".

If you can't follow that, I don't know what to tell you.

---

Hey dude, if you're going to have an issue with gay marriage; you've got to be prepared to have nude french lesbos write "**** church" on their bare chests wearing nun-outfits; that's not an attack; that's self defense. If you believe that, I don't know what to tell you.

quote:

---

Marriage did carry with it a definition of one man and one woman; it was changed to suit the madding crowd. It costs absolutely nothing to say "you know those legal rights that the married people have? yeah, go ahead and give them to gay couples and call it a domestic partnership, go ahead and extend it to everyone who makes a domestic partnership regardless of whether they're romantically interested in each other". Words have meanings; marriage equality means exactly what they want it to mean; there's no difference in between the relationship between a man and a woman and a man and a man; I disagree.

---

No. Words only have meanings if they need to have meanings. Words have also changed meanings overtime.

What is the necessary reason that we have to keep homosexual and heterosexual marriage different? This I do not get.

quote:

---

Will you explain why your post makes sense? It seems like you just tried spiking the football in the endzone without realizing you're playing soccer. We're talking about morality here; if you change "gay" to "child molestor" or "person who is genetically predisposed to rape" would you be so flippant? Of course not; it's only because you don't see homosexual activity as being immoral; although it could be if we just wait around for society to change it's mind. We've already heard that being attracted to children is natural in this thread; just a few moments ago; if and when society decides that love-wins for pedos, will you be posting the same thing regarding Christians denouncing the practice?

---

Homosexuality is between two consenting adults and does nothing to harm society. That group could contribute an overall positive effect. Especially if religion would stop stomping its feet like an angry child and get out of the damn way. Thankfully, it's headed in that direction despite that.

Rape and Child Molestation are obviously extremely harmful. They are both considered deviant crimes for a reason. If there is a genetic component to it then we as a society need to find a way to suppress the impulse. Also, Castration, instutionalize etc. when it's acted upon the 1st time. Instead of crowding jails. That might create a safer environment. Those are just suggestions but, there has to be a better way of addressing the problem.

To say that those two things will one day be accepted like homosexuality is an incredibly desperate reach.

quote:

---

that's not an attack; that's self defense.

---

Yeah, you wish they would have taken the high road. But don't pretend that their response absolves you starting it...or in any way means there's equal blame in the animosity.

edit: removed comment that was unnecessary to the discussion. My apologies.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Marriage did carry with it a definition of one man and one woman; it was changed to suit the madding crowd. It costs absolutely nothing to say "you know those legal rights that the married people have? yeah, go ahead and give them to gay couples and call it a domestic partnership, go ahead and extend it to everyone who makes a domestic partnership regardless of whether they're romantically interested in each other". Words have meanings; marriage equality means exactly what they want it to mean; there's no difference in between the relationship between a man and a woman and a man and a man; I disagree.

---

No. Words only have meanings if they need to have meanings. Words have also changed meanings overtime.

What is the necessary reason that we have to keep homosexual and heterosexual marriage different? This I do not get.

---

Why does a triangle need to have an exclusionary meaning? Why not just call it a shape; and then you can delve in deeper and figure out which shape it is? That's exactly what we've done with marriage; expanded the definition from what it was, into a larger category; and given precedence to expand the definition even larger. What is the necessary reason that men can't bear children? Because it's not in their nature; marriage highlights the complementarity of both the biologies and nurturing skills of both man and a woman as being necessary for both survival of the species and as the most stabilizing environment for which to raise children. Why do children do better with both a mother and a father than with just a mother; just a father; or with two moms or two dads?

quote:

---

Why does a triangle need to have an exclusionary meaning? Why not just call it a shape; and then you can delve in deeper and figure out which shape it is? That's exactly what we've done with marriage; expanded the definition from what it was, into a larger category; and given precedence to expand the definition even larger.

---

I have already answered this: there's simply no reason to bear the cost to undo what the "marriage code" has already setup in our government and legal systems...with out real, rational, and understood reasons for doing so....

quote:

---

What is the necessary reason that men can't bear children? Because it's not in their nature; marriage highlights the complementarity of both the biologies and nurturing skills of both man and a woman as being necessary for both survival of the species and as the most stabilizing environment for which to raise children. Why do children do better with both a mother and a father than with just a mother; just a father; or with two moms or two dads?

---

So, your necessary reason is basically that homosexual couples are a substandard entity in which to raise children? Are they better or worse than single parent families? What about in families that are mixed gender, but no husband-wife duo (like mom - her dad - her mother)? What about foster care system versus a loving environment, but only the same sex?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Will you explain why your post makes sense? It seems like you just tried spiking the football in the endzone without realizing you're playing soccer. We're talking about morality here; if you change "gay" to "child molestor" or "person who is genetically predisposed to rape" would you be so flippant? Of course not; it's only because you don't see homosexual activity as being immoral; although it could be if we just wait around for society to change it's mind. We've already heard that being attracted to children is natural in this thread; just a few moments ago; if and when society decides that love-wins for pedos, will you be posting the same thing regarding Christians denouncing the practice?

---

Homosexuality is between two consenting adults and does nothing to harm society. That group could contribute an overall positive effect. Especially if religion would stop stomping its feet like an angry child and get out of the damn way. Thankfully, it's headed in that direction despite that.

Rape and Child Molestation are obviously extremely harmful. They are both considered deviant crimes for a reason. If there is a genetic component to it then we as a society need to find a way to suppress the impulse. Also, Castration, instutionalize etc. when it's acted upon the 1st time. Instead of crowding jails. That might create a safer environment. Those are just suggestions but, there has to be a better way of addressing the problem.

To say that those two things will one day be accepted like homosexuality is an incredibly desperate reach.

---

What does deviant mean? departing from usual or accepted norms, especially in sexual behavior; would that apply to anything else? Isn't it really society that makes those things extremely harmful? There are loads of statistics that show that suicide and other terrible by products impact gays and transgenders at a much higher rate than straight people; I've been told it's because of bullying, and from forcing them to the margins of society, etc etc; might it be that if we just tolerated the way they were created; it would reduce some of the stigma? What if the parent is okay with it; and the child doesn't mind? I've been told earlier it's a completely natural thing to be attracted to children; if no one is harmed by it; why do we not let child-love win?

quote:

---

I've been told earlier it's a completely natural thing to be attracted to children; if no one is harmed by it

---

Do you mean, other than the child?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Why does a triangle need to have an exclusionary meaning? Why not just call it a shape; and then you can delve in deeper and figure out which shape it is? That's exactly what we've done with marriage; expanded the definition from what it was, into a larger category; and given precedence to expand the definition even larger.

---

I have already answered this: there's simply no reason to bear the cost to undo what the "marriage code" has already setup in our government and legal systems...with out real, rational, and understood reasons for doing so....

quote:

---

What is the necessary reason that men can't bear children? Because it's not in their nature; marriage highlights the complementarity of both the biologies and nurturing skills of both man and a woman as being necessary for both survival of the species and as the most stabilizing environment for which to raise children. Why do children do better with both a mother and a father than with just a mother; just a father; or with two moms or two dads?

---

So, your necessary reason is basically that homosexual couples are a substandard entity in which to raise children? Are they better or worse than single parent families? What about in families that are mixed gender, but no husband-wife duo (like mom - her dad - her mother)? What about foster care system versus a loving environment, but only the same sex?

---

You never answered about the enormity of the costs of cutting and pasting everything from the "marriage" box into the "domestic partnership" box.

No, the stabilizing benefits are all symptoms that point to the true definition of marriage; they're added bonuses that come along with using an institution the way it was intended. You see all sorts of heinous side effects when natural laws are jettisoned. I see active homosexuality as immoral; I don't believe you can do an immoral action and hope to get a moral outcome; also stated as the ends don't justify the means. I wouldn't agree with putting a child with just an adopted mother, or just an adopted father. Obviously if a parent dies it's a different situation; and not the same thing as the affirmative placing of a child in a substandard arrangement. The same with the other situations.

quote:

---

quote:

---

I've been told earlier it's a completely natural thing to be attracted to children; if no one is harmed by it

---

Do you mean, other than the child?

---

obviously I know what I believe with regards to the naturalness of pedophilia; but I've been re-educated today; apparently it's normal. Who defines what "hurt" is anyway? If the parent is okay with it; and the child doesn't object; how do we have the ability to step in and say "NO!, LOVE DOES NOT WIN!"

quote:

---

You never answered about the enormity of the costs of cutting and pasting everything from the "marriage" box into the "domestic partnership" box.

---

I'm sorry I missed this then. I'm just thinking about our tax code, federal laws, state laws, etc....seems silly to even bother when we've already fixed it by allowing gays to marry.

quote:

---

No, the stabilizing benefits are all symptoms that point to the true definition of marriage; they're added bonuses that come along with using an institution the way it was intended. You see all sorts of heinous side effects when natural laws are jettisoned. I see active homosexuality as immoral; I don't believe you can do an immoral action and hope to get a moral outcome; also stated as the ends don't justify the means. I wouldn't agree with putting a child with just an adopted mother, or just an adopted father. Obviously if a parent dies it's a different situation; and not the same thing as the affirmative placing of a child in a substandard arrangement. The same with the other situations.

---

You're choosing to not answer the question. Currently, its legal for a single mother or single father to adopt a child. Do you support removing this ability?

Secondly, you are opposed to puttng someone in a stable homosexual family because it's substandard....but are ok with leaving a child in a substandard environment because? This doesn't make sense. Shouldn't we go remove all those children from those substandard environments?

quote:

---

obviously I know what I believe with regards to the naturalness of pedophilia; but I've been re-educated today; apparently it's normal. Who defines what "hurt" is anyway? If the parent is okay with it; and the child doesn't object; how do we have the ability to step in and say "NO!, LOVE DOES NOT WIN!"

---

My comment was to say that the child is hurt, that's the reason why we don't allow it. We have legal consent laws.

Must we continue with these inane comparisons?

You've been told the absurdity of the comparison. Yet you keep dropping questions while trying to manipulate the conversation. Simply because you refuse to accept it. Even though what others and I have posted are logical.

Inb4Irefusetoacceptwhat?

quote:

---

Being gay doesn't make you feminine.

---

I did't say him being feminine MADE him gay. I believe he was feminine because he is gay. I would bet that most gay men don't identify with women. However, he was incredibly feminine by the age of three and that continued.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Will you explain why your post makes sense? It seems like you just tried spiking the football in the endzone without realizing you're playing soccer. We're talking about morality here; if you change "gay" to "child molestor" or "person who is genetically predisposed to rape" would you be so flippant? Of course not; it's only because you don't see homosexual activity as being immoral; although it could be if we just wait around for society to change it's mind. We've already heard that being attracted to children is natural in this thread; just a few moments ago; if and when society decides that love-wins for pedos, will you be posting the same thing regarding Christians denouncing the practice?

---

There is nothing similar between pedophiia and homosexuality that isn't similar with pedophilia and heterosexuality.

---

Heterosexuality is the norm; pedophilia and homosexuality are not. Do you disagree?

---

By norm you mean the majority. Homosexuality is not the norm in the same sense left handed people are not the norm. It's entirely natural though. Pedophilia is also natural but we criminalize it because we have decided children cannot consent to the act it involves.

---

If we decide that children can consent, I assume you'll be championing the morality and fighting for pedophile acceptance? Love wins again? And by norm, I mean the order of sexuality, men are not created to copulate with other men, nor is sexuality proper between a person lacking the maturity to give full consent and who hasn't hit puberty yet.

quote:

---

You've been told the absurdity of the comparison. Yet you keep dropping questions while trying to manipulate the conversation. Simply because you refuse to accept it. Even though what others and I have posted are logical.

Inb4Irefusetoacceptwhat?

---

Yes, I've been told the absurdity of the comparison, by people who are wrong. What is logical about homosexual attraction, heterosexual attraction, and being sexually attracted to children being equal? If that doesn't sound ridiculously ****ed up to you, you should have an ankle bracelet on and not be allowed 100 feet from a school bus stop. The idea that the only thing wrong with a grown man having sex with a child is that society has determined the child can't consent is so completely grotesque, I'm going to hope you're just trolling

If champion keeping age of consent where it is and would fight against anything lower than 16. Mary for instance couldn't have given consent at her very young age.

quote:

---

quote:

---

I don't think any of you actually understood that my comments were in light of atheists disallowing the bible when discussing God, and Protestants disallowing the Catechism when discussing Christianity. I'm hoping Maplethorpe and Aggrad will make their arguments under my guidelines this time, but was actually tickled aggrad took a few moments a time from his "silent smug musing break" to peruse my comments

---

No one in that thread "disallowed" The bible anywhere. We merely mock the use of circular reasoning. You first question whether the early church actually believed jesus return was soon and made that comment with no context nor with any follow up defense of your view which is hard to hold if the early church was indeed expecting jesus.

---

Oh bull****, your frot buddy Maplethorpe constantly disallows whatever he needs to make his inanity seem less outlandish. Usually declaring that something wasn't in the earliest biblical iteration so it doesn't count, or Jesus was acruelly gay while having an affair with Mary Magdalene. If you're not smart enough to throw a flag when you see me trying to refer to the apocrypha over the Bible (which you should know is included in my bible), I've got some plexus to sell you